A Bad Penny Resurfaces

First he attacked the Pledge of Allegiance. Now he's back again, and he's out to get your money. Or more precisely, he wants to change the look of it.

That's right. Bad penny Michael Newdow is back again to thrust his activist atheism into the face of the rest of the nation. This time, he plans to sue the Treasury Department to force the government to remove the national motto "In God We Trust" from all U.S. currency.

He claims it's an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and "excludes people who don't believe in God."

Except that it's not really about that at all. It's all about personal liberties and freedom from religious intolerance. Right?

Newdow said his efforts are not spurred by an atheistic agenda, but rather by a desire to see the government adhere to the U.S. Constitution. He dismissed opponents' arguments that references to God in government honor the country's religious roots, saying constitutional rights should take precedent.

"It's not the history that counts. It's not the patriotism. What it is, is these people want to get their religious views in our government," he said.

Interestingly enough, "these people" who want to ensnare the government in religion by introducing such inflammatory language on our currency did so way back in 1865, when Congress first authorized the words to be printed on the nation's coins. But I forgot – it's not about the history.

The strangest irony in Newdow's timing of this new ploy is this: The Supreme Court just today declined to rule on a suit very similar to this one.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a ruling that the inscription "In God We Trust" on the front of a government building in North Carolina does not violate church-state separation.

The justices rejected an appeal of the decision that dismissed a lawsuit by two attorneys who had challenged as unconstitutional the phrase over the main entrance to the county's government center in Lexington, North Carolina.

The phrase, written in 18-inch block letters, was more prominently displayed than the name of the building, which was the only other writing on the front facade, according to the lawsuit.

A U.S. appeals court ruled that the lawsuit failed to show that the display had no legitimate secular purpose, that it has the effect of endorsing religion or that it has resulted in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

The most interesting fact of that story is that the justices apparently rejected the appeal unanimously.

So what do we say to Mr. Newdow? If it offends you that much, just use credit cards! Or if that won't work, then find someplace where the laws enforce your beliefs,

In God we trust, Mr. Newdow, not in you.